S/PV.647 Security Council

The Counci~ has met on three occasions during the vast two and one-half months on this item, with the result each time that considerations outside the direct purview of this Counci1 have indicated the advisability of postponement. During this period we are pleased"to note that there has been a considerable deerease in the tension which has at times characterized the relations in this area. Perhaps the most notable example of the relaxation of tension is the withdrawa1 of" tJ:oops by both sides, recent1y initiated. Other significant measures of an economic nature have likewise contributed to the relaxation of tension. 2. The .members of the Security Counci1 are àware of .course that"diplomatie discussions have been under way for some time tofind a peaceful solution for the present difficu1ties with regard to the problem of Trieste. It is the firm belief of the United States Govemment that no useful purpose would be served by a further consideration of the Trieste item in the Security Council at ihis time. Discussiôns 100king towards the means of achieving apeaceful solution are of course continuing, and we are hopeful of fruitfu1 resu1ts. 3. For thesereasons, l move that the Council decide at .this ~me to postpone further consideration of the Tneste Item pending the. outcome df the current efforts to find a solution for this important matter. 4. .The PRESIDENT: Under rule 33 of our rules of procedure, it is stated that ('any motion for the suspen- .

l should simply like to support the proposaI of the United States representative. l agree entire1y with what he said. As Mr. Wadsworth remarked, we can all note with considerable satisfaction the recent withdrawal of troops from both sides of the ltalo-Yugoslav frontier. This .wise and statesmanlike decision by the two main parties involved has undoubtedly already eased the tension and in itself reduced the threat to peace in that area. We can also note with satisfaction, as Mr. vVadsworth also said, that other steps have recently been taken toreduce the tension. 6. These developments merely tend to reinforce what l said here on 20 October [628th meeting]. l said at that time: "Nobody, indeed, can reaHy show with any conviction that such a debate would result in any progress being made towards a settlement, while there is a real prospect of words being said during the debate which might add fuel to the Hames of discord in the area itself." l have no reason at aH to change these views today. The debate on the item before us, as we think, would te bound to !Je sterile and.unrewarding.. The proposaI by the representative of the United States for a further adjournrnent Qf our examination of this item is therefore wise, and we shall certainly give it our support. 7. Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): l am aware that it is useless to. debate the question now before us, namely, whether or not to postpone the consideration of the USSR draft resolution [5/3105] concerning the appointment of a governor for the Free Territory of Trieste. l have no doubt that most of the members of the Security Council have already discussed 'among them~elves what decision shaH he taken today on this questlOn. l have no doubt that the negotiations which have .~een go!ng on behind the back of the Security Councl1 are falrly weH advanced; consequently it is very likely that today's meeting will be eut short and that the Security Council will be prevented from discussing the question put forwarcl for its consideration by the Soviet Union. 8. Nevertheless l cannot refrain trom expressing my views and stating once more the reasons why the Soviet Government considers it more than ever essentia1. that the Security Council should examine this question at the present time. 9. ?-,oday we have had submitted to us a proposaI for the mdefinite postponement of the discussion of the Trieste question. Thus the Security Council would seem to be yet more disposed to ignore our drait resolution than when we first placed the question before it. Before, at lc:;ast, it·was proposed that we should postpone dis- CUSSlOn of the itemÏor a time. Now a date is noteven mentioned. In other words, the proposaI is that the discussion should be deferred sine die - we do not know ~iscuss it, and it now appears that there is no purpose In discussing it. Why, then, did the Security Council decide to include the question in the agenda? The negotiations on the Trieste question, after all, did not start only after this question had been inc1uded in the agenda; . they started considerably ear1ier,several years ago, in fact, whenthefirst three-Power statement was published on 20 March 1948. 1t was, strictly speaking from that very date that certain Powers began to obstruct the discussion of this question - a question which had been on the agenda long before 20 March 1948 and which we are still u' ·~.ble to examine. This is the'fourth time that the matb" is being deferred and, as l have just observed, deferred in more unfavourable eircumstances !ha~ ever before. This time, too, the same official reason . IS gIven éo explain the postponement of the discussion of the Triéste question, namely, that the countriesconcerned have not yet arrived at an agreement througè separate negotiations. That reason has been offered every time -:-- for the fourth time today. l~.!h~ United. S.tates represe1?-tative said today that· dlplO!llatIc negotIatIons were bemg conducted for the ~urpose of. achieving a peacéful settlement of the questIon of TrIeste. But this is absolutely at variance with the facts, because a deeision has aIready been adopted as to ~ow the question of Trieste should be settled. There IS a Treaty of Peace with 1taly. There, in black candid~i:e for the post of governor. If there are pther candi6",c:es, if our candidate isnot acceptable, please put their names forward and we can consider them. The fact that we did not reach agreement on the question some time ago - though then, too, we proposed general candidates, as l mentioned last time (I shall not now be so bold as to burden. your attention by reiterating' aIl these facts; they should be 'luite clear in your memories) - does not mean that we should not discuss it now. In spite of the :fact that we agreed on a wholeseries of candidates, we reached no get'~ral decision at that tilé. But, as l say, that was somp time ago; perhaps it ould be otherwise now if we discussed the candida~ re of the people whose nr,mes are put forward. 18. We have suggesteda Swiss officer, an honotÎrable man, Mr. F1ückiger, as a candidate for the ~ostof governor of the Free Territory of Trieste. You do not wish to. discuss ms candidature because,.you say, that would mnder certain diplomatic. negotiations whose purpose is quite contrary to any with which the Security Coundl shclUldbe concerned, for its tasks are the preservation of peace, the·maintenance. of peaceful relations and the promotion of peaceful .co-operation and international security. '. 23. Thus the aim which the three Western Powers are pursuing and which, they.say, is to arrive at a solution like1y to strengthen peace and in conformity with the interests of aIl peace-loving peoples, does not in fact exist. l have alreadv pointed out that such an aim does not exist, because-a solution has already been found; aU that is needed is to carry it out, that is, to take steps to put it into effect, so that the obligations assumed by twenty-one States under the Treaty of Peace with Italy may be fulfilled. ?4. As. we know, a desire to strellgthen peace and International security was adduced as the reason for the . famous stàtement of 20 March 1948. In that statement it,;,as also aUeged that in the interests of peace and.the mamten..ance of international security it was necessary ta act ln the manner proposed in that statement of 20 March'1948 issued by three signatory governments. In that statement, it will be remembered, the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and 30. But, as we see, the Bermuda Confer~nce bas not altered the situation. After the Conference, the old difficulties still remain, while further difficulties have arisen, difficulties with which the three Western Powers have been confronted from the outset in their plan for the partition of Trieste. These difficulties were not removed, nor even lessened in any way; on the contrary, they have been intensified, so that the only possible result of the negotiations at present in prpgress with a view to finding a solution other than the one contained in the Treaty of Peace is the continued deterioration of the.situation in that important area of Europe, which is bound to affect the situation in Europe a a whole and throughout the world. This is obvious, since the purposes which those negotiations pursue are not directed towards a peaceful settlement between Italy and Yugoslavia. The false and hypocritical statements to that effect must be exposed. If words are insufficient, subsequent events will undoubtedly show what such statements are worth. . 31. The special correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor recently reported from Belgrade that after the lengthy discussions at the Bermuda Conference regarding the basis on which a five-Power conference on Triest.e might be convened, Yugoslavia and the big three Western Powers had not apparently made any progress towards agreement on the opening of the proposed conference. 32. l should like to ask those who are proposing the postponement of discussion on this question, in order to prevent any interference with what is being done behmd our backs, when this five-Power conference will Sel"éUl1iracett~ rien, ternes. b~ convened. This they neither know nor can know, sl.nce they have become enmeshed :b internaI contradlctlOns. 33. For two months now, since 15 October of this year, the Soviet Union has been urging consideration in the Security Council of the question of the appointment of a .governor of the Free Territory of Trieste. The appomtment of a governor would be the first step 33. c'est-à-dire sécurité examine la questio verneur gnation doit constituer le bloc~ 36. The reason and the purpose of the proposed conference. of the three Western Powers, \Vith the participation of Yugoslavia and Italy, is this: that ltaly and Yugoslavia should meet at the conference table and that, as the New York Herald Tribune wrote recently, it may be clearly shown to them that the oyer-aU strategie plan is more important than their own li:uited dispute. The position, in other words, is that the problem of Trieste must be settled in order that the military system of the North Atlantic bloc may be strengthened, and in order that Trieste may be integrated in that system as a frontier post, as a powerful stronghold of the Anglo-American armed forces. That is the goal upon which are fixed the hopes and aspirations of the reactionary political circles of the three Western Powers, and, most of aU, of the United States. Tt is, too, the primary object of the conference whi<'.h the three Western countries are endeavouring to convene; those countries no longer scruple to reject, openly and flagrantly, the obligations they assumed under the Treaty of Peace with ltaly. 37. As before, we firmly insist on the need to put an end to this arbitrary, lawless and unprecedented violation of international :aw, this violation of the Treaty of Peace with Italy which is being carried out by the three Western Powers in their policy towards the Free Territory of Trieste - a policy which, unfortunately, has won the support of the majority of the present Security Council. . 38. The three V\teks whichhave elapsed since the last meeting of the Security Council on this qu~stion, on . 23 November [641st meeting], have shown once again that, thanks to the efforts ôf those who are violating the Treaty of Peace, the problem of Trieste has been driven into an impasse. Everything that has happened during 40. The Soviet Union therefore insists that it is essential to avoid any further delay in the consideration of this question here, in the form and within the limits in 'which the question has now been submitted by the Soviet Union delegation, that is. to say, within the framework of discussing the question of the appointment of a governor of the Free Territory of Trieste. Vve therefore protest against any further postponement of this question. We also protest against what amounts to a rejection of our proposaI, although the proposaI has nr>t been formally rejected. 41. The negotiations on Trieste which are being conducted by the governments of the '.' three Powers, the United States, the United Kingdom and France, with the participation of Italy and Yugoslavia, are illegal, because they are being pursued in contravention of the Treaty of Peace with Italy and for purposes which cannot pr.omote the interests of the population of the Free Territory of Trieste or the strengthening of peace and international security. Those who really wish to ~trengthen international peace and security in that Important region of Europe should seek not to infringe the Treaty of Peace with Italy - it is to that end that the efforts of the three Western Powers are directed- ~)Ut to establish a really free territory of Trieste. That 1S.why we shall vote against the proposaI that consideration. in the Security CouIicil of the question of the aPI?01ntment of a governor of the Free Territory of TrIeste should be postponed. . 42.. The PRESIDENT: The United States represen- ~atlve has moved that· the discussion·on the present Item should bepostponed "pending the outcome of the current efforts to find a solution". The United Kingdom rep~esentative has spoken in support of that procedural ~otlon,.and the Soviet Union representative in opposi- . tlOn to 1t. Abst",:..ing: Lebanon. The motion was adopted by 8 votes to 1, with 1 abstention. The meeting rose at 4.40 p.nt.